where strange brilliant ideas for the future intermingle and breed…

Home > Articles > GMOs: The Future Of Food

GMOs: The Future Of Food

Posted: Mon, January 07, 2013 | By: John Niman

For several months now, I’ve wanted to put together a post talking about Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), and particularly in the context of food. 

I’ve had several debates with my friends – I tend toward the pro-GMO camp and several of my friends are anti-GMO. I maintained that if they simply looked at the science, reviewed the research, and avoided sources with an agenda that often post incorrect information that they would come around to my way of thinking.

It turns out, someone else just did that job for me.

Big-time environmental advocate Mark Lynas has fought GMOs for nearly two decades. He helped to coin the “Franken-whatever” phrase, and has generally contributed to public hysteria and governmental regulation of GMOs, particularly across Europe. 

On Thursday, at the Oxford Farmer’s Conference, Lynas recanted. Anyone interested in GMOs should watch the entirety of his speech, but I’ll highlight a few important bits after the video.

07 Mark Lynas from Oxford Farming Conference on Vimeo.

“[W]hat happened between 1995 and now that made me not only change my mind but come here and admit it? Well, the answer is fairly simple: I discovered science, and in the process I hope I became a better environmentalist.”

This follows my general argument that when people look at the hard data, they understand that most fears about GMOs are unfounded. That someone so ardently opposed to GMOs could revise his opinion, publically no less, is extremely rare and worthy of praise.

“When I first heard about Monsanto’s GM soya I knew exactly what I thought. Here was a big American corporation with a nasty track record, putting something new and experimental into our food without telling us. Mixing genes between species seemed to be about as unnatural as you can get – here was humankind acquiring too much technological power; something was bound to go horribly wrong. These genes would spread like some kind of living pollution. It was the stuff of nightmares.”

Often, when I ask why people dislike GMOs, their reaction comes down to a dislike of Monsanto. I’ll be the first to admit that I’m not a huge fan of Monsanto either, though I find they’re sometimes demonized more than they ought to be. The Supreme Court is expected to hear a case about some of their practices during the upcoming term.

But creating hysteria about GMOs because one of the major companies that makes them is distasteful is like creating a hysteria about computers because one doesn’t like Microsoft. The technology is separate from the people that implement it. If someone wants to argue that the business model of Monsanto is unethical or harmful that’s an argument I can get behind (or at least entertain.) But to suggest that the technology itself is bad, even if Monsanto is a sort of corporate demon, is ludicrous.


How Some People View Monsanto
How Some People View Monsanto


“So I did some reading. And I discovered that one by one my cherished beliefs about GM turned out to be little more than green urban myths. I’d assumed that it would increase the use of chemicals. It turned out that pest-resistant cotton and maize needed less insecticide. I’d assumed that GM benefited only the big companies. It turned out that billions of dollars of benefits were accruing to farmers needing fewer inputs. I’d assumed that Terminator Technology was robbing farmers of the right to save seed. It turned out that hybrids did that long ago, and that Terminator never happened. I’d assumed that no-one wanted GM. Actually what happened was that Bt cotton was pirated into India and roundup ready soya into Brazil because farmers were so eager to use them. I’d assumed that GM was dangerous. It turned out that it was safer and more precise than conventional breeding using mutagenesis for example; GM just moves a couple of genes, whereas conventional breeding mucks about with the entire genome in a trial and error way. But what about mixing genes between unrelated species? The fish and the tomato? Turns out viruses do that all the time, as do plants and insects and even us – it’s called gene flow.”

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes. Lynas moved away from the propaganda, did some research, and came to conclusions backed by evidence instead of fear.

Lynas goes on at some length about how GMOs can help mitigate climate change, help feed billions of people, and generally make life a little better for all of us (and a lot better for some of us.)

“There is a depressing irony here that the anti-biotech campaigners complain about GM crops only being marketed by big corporations when this is a situation they have done more than anyone to help bring about.”

Ironic is exactly the right word to use here. The trouble with GMOs is that it can be a dangerous technology. Part of me hopes that so many of these regulations will be loosened and GMO technology can become essentially open source. So much of my distaste for Monsanto comes down to the patent system and approval process. But because there are strong dissenters to the technology who require stringent regulations the R&D and approval processes are very costly. That means that only large corporations can afford to research the technology. And that, in turn, means that Monsanto remains the biggest game in town because smaller, perhaps more ethical, businesses can’t afford to play.

“In the EU the system is at a standstill, and many GM crops have been waiting a decade or more for approval but are permanently held up by the twisted domestic politics of anti-biotech countries like France and Austria. Around the whole world the regulatory delay has increased to more than 5 and a half years now, from 3.7 years back in 2002. The bureaucratic burden is getting worse.”

Take, for example, a GMO salmon that, after 17 years in the approval process and millions upon millions of dollars spent to get it approved, has finally been approved after the FDA conceded that it “posed no major health or environmental risks” and that “ [the FDA] could not find any valid scientific reasons to ban the production of GM Atlantic salmon engineered with extra genes from two other fish species.”

Lynas says, 

“If you look at the situation without prejudice, much of the debate, both in terms of anti-biotech and organic, is simply based on the naturalistic fallacy – the belief that natural is good, and artificial is bad. This is a fallacy because there are plenty of entirely natural poisons and ways to die, as the relatives of those who died from E.-coli poisoning would tell you. For organic, the naturalistic fallacy is elevated into the central guiding principle for an entire movement. This is irrational and we owe it to the Earth and to our children to do better.”

Indeed we do.

Just a few examples of the potential benefits of GMO technology (in food alone – I will post a separate article about GMOs in other contexts another time):

Lab grown meat that could provide nutrition to millions of people, without the detrimental impact to the Earth caused by traditional cattle and chicken farms and without the ethical problems of killing animals for food.

Modified tomatoes that can help prevent heart disease.

Modified corn that could help treat a rare disease.

Lyons speaks about several other current uses of GMO food to help feed people or cure disease, and again, I cannot recommend strongly enough that you listen to the entire speech. GMO food, time and again, has proven safe, effective, and offers benefits far beyond what traditional farming techniques offer. The best part: We’re just getting started.

As an aside: There is a separate debate about whether GM food ought to be labeled. For the record, I think that it should. People certainly have a right to know what sort of food they’re purchasing and consuming. Perhaps equally importantly, people ought to be able to see how many of the foods they already eat are genetically modified. This, I think, will dissipate some of the fear about GM food. It would, as a side benefit, allow me to knowingly support foods that are genetically modified.

This essay was originally published at John’s blog, BoydFuturist, HERE


Thought-provoking video presentation, introducing me to the work of Mark Lynas.  The writeup leaves me wondering why it refers consistently throughout to another name: Mark Lyons.  Maybe that is another name for Mark Lynas. [editor’s note: thanks for pointing that out!  it has been corrected!]

By David Markun on Jan 07, 2013 at 8:14am

This really needed to be said, by Lynas and by you.  Thanks !
Now let’s have everybody hear it.

By René Milan on Jan 07, 2013 at 10:01am

Well, that was embarrassing. Thanks for pointing that out, David. I don’t know how I botched that.

By John Niman on Jan 07, 2013 at 12:31pm

Yeah, let’s not get too excited about discovering science.  The fact is that there are some real problems with scientific studies overall: lack of reproducibility, conflict of interests, etc.  Many of the assertions about GMO safety basically amount to: “it looks good on paper.”  Oh you only moved one gene?  That’s nice.  Why are you asserting that this is safe? What effect does this actually have on health? No double-blind GMO studies have actually been done on humans. (That I could find.)  So it’s not clear how the FDA got around to declaring any of this stuff safe.  Well aside from the fact that government regulators tend to effectively be tools of industry.

I get that people in the developing world are more concerned with survival than the niceties of optimal health.  But I don’t blame the Europeans for holding their food to higher health standards.

By Scott J on Jan 07, 2013 at 2:12pm

Great essay, John!  There is also a separate question about whether or not GMOs should be patented.  Open source biohacking is going to be the one of the next areas of growth—for example, the International Potato Center is working on potato that would have higher amounts of protein for better nutrition in developing countries.  No one is going to get rich off of that—it’s using what we’ve learned to fight hunger and malnutrition.

By Linda MacDonald Glenn on Jan 07, 2013 at 6:28pm

Precautionary principle - brilliant idea.  Let’s outlaw fucking lest we produce undesirable mutations.

“Soon you’ll achieve the stability you strive for, in the only way that it’s granted.  In a place among the fossils of our time.”

By René Milan on Jan 07, 2013 at 10:53pm

You guys might be interested in having a look at this:

The Lynas School of pseudo-scientific environmentalism
Twenty-two pieces of junk science from the Lynas Manifesto

By Brian John on Jan 08, 2013 at 1:50am

Wow - brave post.

Here’s a question - WHY is there even a debate about whether they should be labelled? And WHY are Monsanto investing so much lobbying against labeling and Prop 37?

This is not about science - it’s about making money.

Also, your Microsoft argument is a non-sequitur.

That’s all I can be bothered to say at the moment, I’m sure others will rip you to pieces on this one.

By Stuart Dobson on Jan 08, 2013 at 1:58am

Leave a Comment:

Note We practice Buddhist Right Speech in our communication. All comments must be polite, friendly, and on topic.

What color is a yellow house?


Enter your email address:


Smart, Strong and Sexy at 100?
Smart, Strong and Sexy at 100?
The Left Hand of Darkness
The Left Hand of Darkness
The Transhumanist Reader by Max More and Natasha Vita-More
The Transhumanist Reader by Max More and Natasha Vita-More
More Books
Ray Kurzweil Talks to Basil Gelpke
Ray Kurzweil Talks to Basil Gelpke
STELARC - Meat, Metal & Code - Humanity+ @Melbourne 2012
STELARC - Meat, Metal & Code - Humanity+ @Melbourne 2012
Eliminating Death - Why Immortality Will Win / Gennady Stolyarov II
Eliminating Death - Why Immortality Will Win / Gennady Stolyarov II
More Videos